On Sat, Mar 15, 2025, 11:25 Juris Evertovskis <ju...@glaive.pro> wrote:
> The key point, hoewever, seems to be that the naming of the feature is > excremental and very easy to misunderstand. I suppose the naming issue can > be solved separately (if a better name is found) and the documentation can > use a different naming and description if the RFC itself passes. > > > Hi Juris, Looking a bit into the naming issue, it feels like shifting from "optional interface" to "optionally implements interfaces" is something that could have help. The RFC could have used throughout the text the adverb "optionally" to the verb "to implement" or adjective "optional" to "implementation" instead of as an adjective to "interface". Also the name would have been "optional interface implementation". If you agree, and if the RFC passes, this could at least be documented as such. Was not able to find other words that matches better, as all have some drawbacks. -- Alex
